In Danmark, for instance, GMO products have to be marked so consumers have a choice.
I've seen products in Save-On marked as GMO (e.g. red seedless grapes); is it company choice in Canada to mark food as such?
My concern is the seemingly lack of controls, how do we know that is or is not good for us? Theory is one thing ,practice is another. Look at it this way , Nobody, or had they? foresaw the effects of DDT. Could we in some cases, be seeing this in the future?
As far as I know, it's the job of Health Canada, the FDA, etc. to decide what is(n't) safe for us. They don't always get it right right away (e.g. thalidomide), and sometimes things slip through the system (e.g. lead jewellery) but I'm sure they do their best to protect the health of Canadians & Americans, despite what the Splenda activists would have you believe. Perhaps that is why they are yet to approve AquaBounty's super salmon and why they are so quick to jump on banning bath salts? Nina suggests these regulatory bodies are relatively mediocre, so she may know more about them than I do. Perhaps they are underfunded, which is why they are less involved than in Europe; though, I've also heard that Canadians like choice, which may explain some of any laxity.
Again, it's extremely unlikely that GMO food consumption will result in negative health effects (and that is being conservative); they aren't adding untested, synthetic chemicals such as DDT to the food (well, not to modify it anyway).
With that said, it's worth mentioning that "natural" or "organic" doesn't always mean safe, or healthy. This applies more to herbs but it could apply to animal products as well; eat too much organ meat and you'll probably develop gout, eat some poorly cut fugu and it's lights out.
Due to my background I am mostly focused on the plant GMO and know hardly anything about animal GMOs. In general though, if the inserted gene is not in the gametes (such as sperm and egg in mammals) the gene would have no way to be transferred to the offsprings. A gene from a transplanted organ would therefore stay put.
I know that "jumping genes" exist. IIRC, they can be a result of viral infection. Thus, I think that -- theoretically -- animal genes could find their way into human genomes as a result of such transplants. Though, I think they can do so already; again, due to transfer via viral vectors. The odds of it happening and causing problems, though are probably very low and I imagine most people would opt for the transplant after weighing the risks and benefits.
asking these questions is therefore very important
Yes, good on ya for making an effort to make informed decisions